-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2020Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is defined as pneumonia developing in people who have received mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours. VAP is a potentially... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is defined as pneumonia developing in people who have received mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours. VAP is a potentially serious complication in these patients who are already critically ill. Oral hygiene care (OHC), using either a mouthrinse, gel, swab, toothbrush, or combination, together with suction of secretions, may reduce the risk of VAP in these patients.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of oral hygiene care (OHC) on incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation in hospital intensive care units (ICUs).
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 25 February 2020), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2020, Issue 1), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 25 February 2020), Embase Ovid (1980 to 25 February 2020), LILACS BIREME Virtual Health Library (1982 to 25 February 2020) and CINAHL EBSCO (1937 to 25 February 2020). We also searched the VIP Database (January 2012 to 8 March 2020). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effects of OHC (mouthrinse, gel, swab, toothbrush or combination) in critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently assessed search results, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in included studies. We contacted study authors for additional information. We reported risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, using the random-effects model of meta-analysis when data from four or more trials were combined.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 40 RCTs (5675 participants), which were conducted in various countries including China, USA, Brazil and Iran. We categorised these RCTs into five main comparisons: chlorhexidine (CHX) mouthrinse or gel versus placebo/usual care; CHX mouthrinse versus other oral care agents; toothbrushing (± antiseptics) versus no toothbrushing (± antiseptics); powered versus manual toothbrushing; and comparisons of other oral care agents used in OHC (other oral care agents versus placebo/usual care, or head-to-head comparisons between other oral care agents). We assessed the overall risk of bias as high in 31 trials and low in two, with the rest being unclear. Moderate-certainty evidence from 13 RCTs (1206 participants, 92% adults) shows that CHX mouthrinse or gel, as part of OHC, probably reduces the incidence of VAP compared to placebo or usual care from 26% to about 18% (RR 0.67, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.47 to 0.97; P = 0.03; I = 66%). This is equivalent to a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 12 (95% CI 7 to 128), i.e. providing OHC including CHX for 12 ventilated patients in intensive care would prevent one patient developing VAP. There was no evidence of a difference between interventions for the outcomes of mortality (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.33; P = 0.86, I = 0%; 9 RCTs, 944 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), duration of mechanical ventilation (MD -1.10 days, 95% CI -3.20 to 1.00 days; P = 0.30, I = 74%; 4 RCTs, 594 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or duration of intensive care unit (ICU) stay (MD -0.89 days, 95% CI -3.59 to 1.82 days; P = 0.52, I = 69%; 5 RCTs, 627 participants; low-certainty evidence). Most studies did not mention adverse effects. One study reported adverse effects, which were mild, with similar frequency in CHX and control groups and one study reported there were no adverse effects. Toothbrushing (± antiseptics) may reduce the incidence of VAP (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.91; P = 0.01, I = 40%; 5 RCTs, 910 participants; low-certainty evidence) compared to OHC without toothbrushing (± antiseptics). There is also some evidence that toothbrushing may reduce the duration of ICU stay (MD -1.89 days, 95% CI -3.52 to -0.27 days; P = 0.02, I = 0%; 3 RCTs, 749 participants), but this is very low certainty. Low-certainty evidence did not show a reduction in mortality (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.05; P = 0.12, I = 0%; 5 RCTs, 910 participants) or duration of mechanical ventilation (MD -0.43, 95% CI -1.17 to 0.30; P = 0.25, I = 46%; 4 RCTs, 810 participants).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Chlorhexidine mouthwash or gel, as part of OHC, probably reduces the incidence of developing ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in critically ill patients from 26% to about 18%, when compared to placebo or usual care. We did not find a difference in mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation or duration of stay in the intensive care unit, although the evidence was low certainty. OHC including both antiseptics and toothbrushing may be more effective than OHC with antiseptics alone to reduce the incidence of VAP and the length of ICU stay, but, again, the evidence is low certainty. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether any of the interventions evaluated in the studies are associated with adverse effects.
Topics: Adult; Child; Chlorhexidine; Critical Illness; Humans; Incidence; Intensive Care Units; Length of Stay; Mouthwashes; Oral Hygiene; Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiration, Artificial; Toothbrushing
PubMed: 33368159
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008367.pub4 -
International Journal of Dental Hygiene Feb 2022This systematic review and network meta-analysis synthesizes the available clinical evidence concerning efficacy with respect to plaque scores following a brushing... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
This systematic review and network meta-analysis synthesizes the available clinical evidence concerning efficacy with respect to plaque scores following a brushing action with oscillating-rotating (OR) or high-frequency sonic (HFS) powered toothbrushes (PTB) compared with a manual toothbrush (MTB) as control.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Databases were searched up to 1 August 2021, for clinical trials that evaluated the efficacy of a PTB with OR or HFS technology compared with an MTB on plaque removal after a single-brushing action and conducted with healthy adult patients. Meta-analysis (MA) and a network meta-analysis (NMA) were performed.
RESULTS
Twenty-eight eligible publications, including 56 relevant comparisons, were retrieved. The overall NMA results for the mean post-brushing score showed a statistically significant difference for the comparison between an OR PTB and an MTB (SMD = -0.43; 95% CI [-0.696;-0.171]). The change in plaque score data showed a significant effect of a PTB over an MTB and OR over HFS. Based on ranking, the OR PTB was highest, followed by the HFS PTB and the MTB.
CONCLUSION
Within the limitations of the present study design, based on the outcome following a single-brushing action, it can be concluded that for dental plaque removal, there is a high certainty for a small effect of a PTB over an MTB. This supports the recommendation to use a powered toothbrush for daily plaque removal. There is moderate certainty for a very small benefit for the use of a powered toothbrush with an OR over an HFS mode of action.
Topics: Adult; Dental Plaque; Dental Plaque Index; Equipment Design; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Single-Blind Method; Toothbrushing
PubMed: 34877772
DOI: 10.1111/idh.12563 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2019Halitosis or bad breath is a symptom in which a noticeably unpleasant breath odour is present due to an underlying oral or systemic disease. 50% to 60% of the world... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Halitosis or bad breath is a symptom in which a noticeably unpleasant breath odour is present due to an underlying oral or systemic disease. 50% to 60% of the world population has experienced this problem which can lead to social stigma and loss of self-confidence. Multiple interventions have been tried to control halitosis ranging from mouthwashes and toothpastes to lasers. This new Cochrane Review incorporates Cochrane Reviews previously published on tongue scraping and mouthrinses for halitosis.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this review were to assess the effects of various interventions used to control halitosis due to oral diseases only. We excluded studies including patients with halitosis secondary to systemic disease and halitosis-masking interventions.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 8 April 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 3) in the Cochrane Library (searched 8 April 2019), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 8 April 2019), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 8 April 2019). We also searched LILACS BIREME (1982 to 19 April 2019), the National Database of Indian Medical Journals (1985 to 19 April 2019), OpenGrey (1992 to 19 April 2019), and CINAHL EBSCO (1937 to 19 April 2019). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov (8 April 2019), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (8 April 2019), the ISRCTN Registry (19 April 2019), the Clinical Trials Registry - India (19 April 2019), were searched for ongoing trials. We also searched the cross-references of included studies and systematic reviews published on the topic. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which involved adults over the age of 16, and any intervention for managing halitosis compared to another or placebo, or no intervention. The active interventions or controls were administered over a minimum of one week and with no upper time limit. We excluded quasi-randomised trials, trials comparing the results for less than one week follow-up, and studies including advanced periodontitis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two pairs of review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We estimated mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 44 trials in the review with 1809 participants comparing an intervention with a placebo or a control. The age of participants ranged from 17 to 77 years. Most of the trials reported on short-term follow-up (ranging from one week to four weeks). Only one trial reported long-term follow-up (three months). Three studies were at low overall risk of bias, 16 at high overall risk of bias, and the remaining 25 at unclear overall risk of bias. We compared different types of interventions which were categorised as mechanical debridement, chewing gums, systemic deodorising agents, topical agents, toothpastes, mouthrinse/mouthwash, tablets, and combination methods. Mechanical debridement: for mechanical tongue cleaning versus no tongue cleaning, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported organoleptic test (OLT) scores (MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.07; 2 trials, 46 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events. Chewing gums: for 0.6% eucalyptus chewing gum versus placebo chewing gum, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported OLT scores (MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.11; 1 trial, 65 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events. Systemic deodorising agents: for 1000 mg champignon versus placebo, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome patient-reported visual analogue scale (VAS) scores (MD -1.07, 95% CI -14.51 to 12.37; 1 trial, 40 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for dentist-reported OLT score or adverse events. Topical agents: for hinokitiol gel versus placebo gel, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported OLT scores (MD -0.27, 95% CI -1.26 to 0.72; 1 trial, 18 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events. Toothpastes: for 0.3% triclosan toothpaste versus control toothpaste, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported OLT scores (MD -3.48, 95% CI -3.77 to -3.19; 1 trial, 81 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events. Mouthrinse/mouthwash: for mouthwash containing chlorhexidine and zinc acetate versus placebo mouthwash, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported OLT scores (MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.58 to 0.18; 1 trial, 44 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events. Tablets: no data were reported on key outcomes for this comparison. Combination methods: for brushing plus cetylpyridium mouthwash versus brushing, the evidence was uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported OLT scores (MD -0.48, 95% CI -0.72 to -0.24; 1 trial, 70 participants; low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found low- to very low-certainty evidence to support the effectiveness of interventions for managing halitosis compared to placebo or control for the OLT and patient-reported outcomes tested. We were unable to draw any conclusions regarding the superiority of any intervention or concentration. Well-planned RCTs need to be conducted by standardising the interventions and concentrations.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Chewing Gum; Chlorhexidine; Dental Scaling; Female; Halitosis; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Mouthwashes; Oral Health; Oral Hygiene; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tongue; Toothbrushing; Toothpastes; Young Adult
PubMed: 31825092
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012213.pub2 -
Ciencia & Saude Coletiva 2019This study investigated the mediation of self-esteem in adolescents' oral health behaviors. The Rosenberg self-esteem scale was used to assess self-esteem, whereas data...
This study investigated the mediation of self-esteem in adolescents' oral health behaviors. The Rosenberg self-esteem scale was used to assess self-esteem, whereas data from socio-demographic and behavior characteristics were analyzed by questions validated in previous surveys. The teenagers had good oral health behavior, except unhealthy diet. The number of adolescents with high self-esteem was a lot smaller than those with low self-esteem. The use of dental services, even when associated with high self-esteem, lost significance after being adjusted by sex, age and tooth brushing frequency. Nevertheless, multiple logistic regression analysis, using unadjusted estimates and adjusted with their respective Confidence Intervals of 95%, showed a relationship of self-esteem with age (p-value=0.001) and tooth brushing frequency (p-value=0.019). Regardless of the sex, students over 16 years old with high self-esteem brush their teeth more often, having probably better oral health. These results confirm the modulation of self-esteem in oral health, and then it is necessary the analysis and the use of these psychosocial factors in the young oral health care.
Topics: Adolescent; Age Factors; Cross-Sectional Studies; Dental Care; Diet; Female; Health Behavior; Humans; Male; Oral Health; Self Concept; Students; Surveys and Questionnaires; Toothbrushing; Young Adult
PubMed: 31664381
DOI: 10.1590/1413-812320182411.02492018 -
Australian Dental Journal Dec 2019To identify and map existing evidence on the effectiveness of interdental cleaning devices in preventing dental caries and periodontal diseases, a scoping review was... (Review)
Review
To identify and map existing evidence on the effectiveness of interdental cleaning devices in preventing dental caries and periodontal diseases, a scoping review was carried out by electronically searching PubMed, Scopus and Embase. Studies on interdental cleaning devices, written in English, and published from January 2008 up to April 2019 were included in the review. Of 1860 studies identified, six systematic reviews (SR) were included in the review. One SR each was on flossing, interdental brushes, wood sticks and oral irrigation. Of two SR on multitude of interdental cleaning devices, one assessed comparative efficacy while the other both the individual and comparative efficacy. All reviews had assessed the heterogeneity and the methodological quality of studies included, and performed data extraction and meta-analysis where appropriate. Evidence ranged from weak to moderate with very low- to low-certainty for the adjunctive benefit of these devices to control plaque and gingivitis. It warrants long-term studies with sufficient power and those assessing the impact of interdental cleaning on interproximal caries to corroborate such evidence. Available evidence on the efficacy of interdental cleaning devices suggests that dental practitioners recommend patient-specific interdental cleaning devices that enable patients to achieve a safe and high standard of interdental cleaning.
Topics: Dental Caries; Dental Devices, Home Care; Dental Plaque; Gingivitis; Humans; Periodontal Diseases; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Toothbrushing
PubMed: 31556125
DOI: 10.1111/adj.12722 -
Dental Materials Journal Oct 2022The relative dentin abrasivity-profilometry equivalent values were compared using non-contact profilometry with three subtypes of regular toothpaste and two subtypes of...
The relative dentin abrasivity-profilometry equivalent values were compared using non-contact profilometry with three subtypes of regular toothpaste and two subtypes of whitening toothpaste containing sodium bicarbonate and 35% hydrogen peroxide. Bovine dentin specimens were assigned to six groups: regular toothpaste (R): R1 (BAMBOO SALT GUM OINTMENT); R2 (MEDIAN TARTAR ORIGINAL); R3 (PERIOE Alpha), Reference slurry: RS (calcium pyrophosphate), whitening toothpaste (W): W1 (NET. WT); W2 (Vussen 28 WHITENING). Relative dentin abrasion-profilometry equivalent (RDA-PE) was determined by brushing 10,000 times (n=8). The pH of the toothpaste was measured (n=5) and the abrasive constituents of the toothpaste was analyzed by FE-SEM and EDS. The RDA-PE values ranged from 26 to 166, and the pH level ranges were 4.928-9.153. The RDA-PE value of the whitening toothpaste containing hydrogen peroxide was not high compared with that of the regular toothpaste. The RDA-PE values of whitening toothpaste could vary depending on the mechanism and ingredients of the whitening agents.
Topics: Animals; Bleaching Agents; Calcium Pyrophosphate; Cattle; Dentin; Hydrogen; Materials Testing; Ointments; Sodium Bicarbonate; Tooth Abrasion; Toothbrushing; Toothpastes
PubMed: 35793939
DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2021-303 -
BMC Oral Health Jul 2020Children aged 6-7 years are in the early mixed dentition, which is a period of high prevalence of dental caries and other dental diseases and a critical period for the...
BACKGROUND
Children aged 6-7 years are in the early mixed dentition, which is a period of high prevalence of dental caries and other dental diseases and a critical period for the formation of oral health behaviors. Therefore, good oral hygiene habits of children and oral health knowledge of parents are very important. This study sought to explore the relationship between children's oral health behaviors, parental oral health knowledge, parental choices of pit and fissure sealants, and parents' education levels based on a large-scale sample size for the first time, and to compare the influences of parental education levels between parents.
METHODS
Families of the first and second graders of primary schools in Wuhan Hongshan District were included in this study. A total of 8446 questionnaires were collected to obtain comprehensive information on children's oral health behaviors, parents' oral health knowledge and parents' pit and fissure sealants-related choices. The relationship between these outcome variables and parents' education levels were studied using logistic regression analysis and chi-square test.
RESULTS
Parents who reported good educational background had more favorable oral health knowledge than those of other parents, and their children had better oral hygiene behaviors. Four indicators of five measures to children's oral health behaviors were significantly associated with mother's education level (P < 0.05), and three of them were related to father's education level (P ≤ 0.01). Moreover, seven indicators of eight measures to parents' oral health knowledge were significantly related to mother's education level (P < 0.05) and four of them were affected by the father's (P < 0.05). In addition, parents with higher educational attainments paid more attention to the completeness of medical facilities, the environment of dental practice, the distance to treatment sites, and took less concern of children's willingness when choosing the pit and fissure sealants sites.
CONCLUSIONS
In families with children at the early mixed dentition stage, parents with higher education levels tend to have better oral health knowledge and more oral health care needs, such as pit and fissure sealants. In addition, children of parents who have better educated parents tend to perform better oral hygiene practices.
Topics: Adult; Child; Dental Caries; Educational Status; Female; Health Behavior; Health Education, Dental; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; Health Literacy; Humans; Male; Oral Health; Oral Hygiene; Parents; Pit and Fissure Sealants; Surveys and Questionnaires; Toothbrushing
PubMed: 32652985
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-020-01186-4 -
Biomedical Microdevices Aug 2023Cytobrushes are used for low-invasive sample collection and screening in multiple diseases, with a significant impact on early detection, prevention, and diagnosis. This...
Cytobrushes are used for low-invasive sample collection and screening in multiple diseases, with a significant impact on early detection, prevention, and diagnosis. This study focuses on improving the safety of cell brushing in hard-to-reach locations by exploring brush construction from absorbable materials. We investigated the efficacy of loop brushes made of absorbable suture wires of Chirlac, Chirasorb, Monocryl, PDS II, Vicryl Rapid, Glycolon, and Catgut during their operation in conjunction with fine-needle aspiration in an artificial cyst model. PDS II brushes demonstrated the highest efficiency, while Monocryl and Catgut also provided a significant brushing effect. Efficient brushes portrayed higher flexural rigidity than their counterparts, and their efficiency was inversely proportional to their plastic deformation by the needle. Our results open avenues for safer cell biopsies in hard-to-reach locations by utilizing brushes composed of absorbable materials.
Topics: Humans; Cysts; Electric Wiring; Plastics; Sutures
PubMed: 37610663
DOI: 10.1007/s10544-023-00674-y -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2019Periodontal (gum) disease and dental caries (tooth decay) are the most common causes of tooth loss; dental plaque plays a major role in the development of these...
BACKGROUND
Periodontal (gum) disease and dental caries (tooth decay) are the most common causes of tooth loss; dental plaque plays a major role in the development of these diseases. Effective oral hygiene involves removing dental plaque, for example, by regular toothbrushing. People with intellectual disabilities (ID) can have poor oral hygiene and oral health outcomes.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of oral hygiene interventions, specifically the mechanical removal of plaque, for people with intellectual disabilities (ID).
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases to 4 February 2019: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Cochrane Register of Studies), MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid and PsycINFO Ovid. ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. The Embase search was restricted by date due to the Cochrane Centralised Search Project, which makes available clinical trials indexed in Embase through CENTRAL. We handsearched specialist conference abstracts from the International Association of Disability and Oral Health (2006 to 2016).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and some types of non-randomised studies (NRS) (non-RCTs, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series studies and repeated measures studies) that evaluated oral hygiene interventions targeted at people with ID or their carers, or both. We used the definition of ID in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th revision (ICD-10). We defined oral hygiene as the mechanical removal of plaque. We excluded studies that evaluated chemical removal of plaque, or mechanical and chemical removal of plaque combined.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently screened search records, identified relevant studies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and judged the certainty of the evidence according to GRADE criteria. We contacted study authors for additional information if required. We reported RCTs and NRSs separately.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 19 RCTs and 15 NRSs involving 1795 adults and children with ID and 354 carers. Interventions evaluated were: special manual toothbrushes, electric toothbrushes, oral hygiene training, scheduled dental visits plus supervised toothbrushing, discussion of clinical photographs showing plaque, varied frequency of toothbrushing, plaque-disclosing agents and individualised care plans. We categorised results as short (six weeks or less), medium (between six weeks and 12 months) and long term (more than 12 months).Most studies were small; all were at overall high or unclear risk of bias. None of the studies reported quality of life or dental caries. We present below the evidence available from RCTs (or NRS if the comparison had no RCTs) for gingival health (inflammation and plaque) and adverse effects, as well as knowledge and behaviour outcomes for the training studies.Very low-certainty evidence suggested a special manual toothbrush (the Superbrush) reduced gingival inflammation (GI), and possibly plaque, more than a conventional toothbrush in the medium term (GI: mean difference (MD) -12.40, 95% CI -24.31 to -0.49; plaque: MD -0.44, 95% CI -0.93 to 0.05; 1 RCT, 18 participants); brushing was carried out by the carers. In the short term, neither toothbrush showed superiority (GI: MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.77 to 0.57; plaque: MD 0.20, 95% CI -0.45 to 0.85; 1 RCT, 25 participants; low- to very low-certainty evidence).Moderate- and low-certainty evidence found no difference between electric and manual toothbrushes for reducing GI or plaque, respectively, in the medium term (GI: MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.09; plaque: standardised mean difference 0.29, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.65; 2 RCTs, 120 participants). Short-term findings were inconsistent (4 RCTs; low- to very low-certainty evidence).Low-certainty evidence suggested training carers in oral hygiene care had no detectable effect on levels of GI or plaque in the medium term (GI: MD -0.09, 95% CI -0.63 to 0.45; plaque: MD -0.07, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.13; 2 RCTs, 99 participants). Low-certainty evidence suggested oral hygiene knowledge of carers was better in the medium term after training (MD 0.69, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.06; 2 RCTs, 189 participants); this was not found in the short term, and results for changes in behaviour, attitude and self-efficacy were mixed.One RCT (10 participants) found that training people with ID in oral hygiene care reduced plaque but not GI in the short term (GI: MD -0.28, 95% CI -0.90 to 0.34; plaque: MD -0.47, 95% CI -0.92 to -0.02; very low-certainty evidence).One RCT (304 participants) found that scheduled dental recall visits (at 1-, 3- or 6-month intervals) plus supervised daily toothbrushing were more likely than usual care to reduce GI (pocketing but not bleeding) and plaque in the long term (low-certainty evidence).One RCT (29 participants) found that motivating people with ID about oral hygiene by discussing photographs of their teeth with plaque highlighted by a plaque-disclosing agent, did not reduce plaque in the medium term (very low-certainty evidence).One RCT (80 participants) found daily toothbrushing by dental students was more effective for reducing plaque in people with ID than once- or twice-weekly toothbrushing in the short term (low-certainty evidence).A benefit to gingival health was found by one NRS that evaluated toothpaste with a plaque-disclosing agent and one that evaluated individualised oral care plans (very low-certainty evidence).Most studies did not report adverse effects; of those that did, only one study considered them as a formal outcome. Some studies reported participant difficulties using the electric or special manual toothbrushes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Although some oral hygiene interventions for people with ID show benefits, the clinical importance of these benefits is unclear. The evidence is mainly low or very low certainty. Moderate-certainty evidence was available for only one finding: electric and manual toothbrushes were similarly effective for reducing gingival inflammation in people with ID in the medium term. Larger, higher-quality RCTs are recommended to endorse or refute the findings of this review. In the meantime, oral hygiene care and advice should be based on professional expertise and the needs and preferences of the individual with ID and their carers.
Topics: Dental Plaque; Humans; Intellectual Disability; Oral Health; Oral Hygiene; Periodontal Diseases; Toothbrushing
PubMed: 31149734
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012628.pub2 -
Jornal Brasileiro de Pneumologia :... 2021In ICU patients on mechanical ventilation (MV), ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a common infection. However, such infection can be prevented through oral care... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
In ICU patients on mechanical ventilation (MV), ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a common infection. However, such infection can be prevented through oral care protocols. The objective of this study was to compare the efficiency of the use of chlorhexidine and oral hygiene protocols (brushing and clinical procedures) with that of the use of chlorhexidine alone (intervention group and control group, respectively) in decreasing the prevalence of VAP in patients ≥ 18 years of age admitted to the ICU and requiring MV.
METHODS
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, studies were identified through searches of various national and international databases, as well as of the gray literature, and were selected in accordance with eligibility criteria.
RESULTS
We evaluated six studies, involving a collective total of 1,276 patients. We classified the risk of bias as low in three studies, high in two, and uncertain in one; among the six risk domains evaluated, a low risk of bias was predominant in five. The results for random risks were similar in terms of direction and statistical magnitude-chi-square = 6.34; risk difference: -0.06 (95% CI: -0.11 to -0.02); I2 = 21%; p = 0.007. There was a decrease in the prevalence of VAP in the intervention group (n = 1,276) included in the meta-analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
Protocols that include the mechanical removal of oral biofilm in combination with the use of chlorhexidine can reduce the incidence of VAP among ICU patients requiring MV.
Topics: Chlorhexidine; Humans; Oral Hygiene; Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated; Respiration, Artificial; Toothbrushing
PubMed: 33503132
DOI: 10.36416/1806-3756/e20190286